Forensic age assessments of alleged unaccompanied minors at the Medicolegal Institute of Montpellier: a 4-year retrospective study

Abstract

Background As many other European countries, France has to deal with a growing number of migrants including some who contend age minority entitling them to benefits and privileges reserved for children within the context of legal proceedings. In case of doubtful minority, medical examinations may be carried out to assess skeletal and dental age. Our objective was to analyse the age assessments regarding individuals of doubtful minority assertion at the Medico-legal Institute of the University Hospital of Montpellier since 2018. Methods Expert reports of forensic age assessments performed during the 2018–2021 period were reviewed. Demographic data and results from medical and radiological investigations based on AGFAD recommendations were recorded in each case. When available, conclusions of judicial investigations about the individuals’ actual age were collected. Results A total of 265 reports were compiled. Age assessments predominantly concerned males (97.7%) and the main reported country of origin was sub-Saharan Africa (80.4%). The mean reported age was 16.3 ± 0.8 years. The individual’s stated age was compatible with the age assessment in 31 cases (11.7%), while expert reports concluded that the age of majority had been reached in 131 cases (49.4%). In cases of discrepancies, the average difference between the stated and the assessed lowest possible age (= assessed minimum age) was 2.7 ± 2.3 years and 6.9 ± 3.8 years between the stated and the most probable age. Age assessments could be compared with actual ages determined by court proceedings in 27 cases, with established ages being systematically higher than the assessed minimum ages (mean difference = 4.4 ± 4.0 years). The difference between actual and stated ages ranged from 1.8 up to 18.9 years (mean difference = 6.4 ± 4.0 years). The used protocol never led to any age overestimation in this population. Conclusion Our study reinforces the relevance of AGFAD recommendations for forensic age assessment and calls for the harmonization of practices based on this methodology in the European countries.

Forensic Dental Age Estimation: Development of New Algorithm Based on the Minimal Necessary Databases

“…The mean ages assigned to the stages are given with the respective standard deviation and indicate a minimum and maximum age in each case. The indication of the highest minimum age from the interdisciplinary findings is relevant to the overall opinion [ 20 ]. The expert’s dental age estimation should always refer to the person’s stated age and, thereby, consider the probability of the indicated age as well as the standard deviations of the radiological age estimation [ 13 , 21 , 22 ].…”

Forensic age estimation in Barcelona: analysis of expert reports issued between 2011 and 2018

“…Most of the subjects were male (96.7%), and the percentage remained fairly stable throughout the period studied. Other series were also dominated by men: in Berlin (91%) [ 22 ] and Münster (91.8%) [ 23 ], and in Danish (93.1%) [ 24 ] and French series (97.7%) [ 25 ]. In our series, 91.6% came from the African continent.…”

“…In contrast, in Finland, most came from Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia [ 27 ]; in Berlin, from 1992 to 2000, the main countries of origin were Vietnam, Romania, Lebanon, Bangladesh and Turkey [ 22 ]; and in Münster, Asian subjects predominated between 2009 and 2016, whereas sub-Saharans predominated in 2017 and 2018 [ 23 ]. In contrast, in Montpellier, 80.4% of the cases evaluated were sub-Saharan [ 25 ].…”

“…The difference between our protocol [ 13 ] and the AGFAD protocol [ 4 , 5 ] is that in the AGFAD, a CT scan of the clavicles is performed in all cases in which the ossification of the hand is complete [ 28 ], as carried out by the working groups of Rudolf et al [ 29 ], Hagen et al [ 23 ] and Lossois et al [ 25 ]. We performed 15 CT scans of the clavicles, and in all cases, the scan allowed us to estimate the forensic age beyond reasonable doubt [ 5 ].…”

“…In any case, we believe that the percentage of error in these cases is very low, since a recent meta-analysis of the mineralization of the third molar in 19,690 subjects of all ethnic groups confirmed that the percentage of false positives was very low, at 3.1% [ 37 ]. Likewise, in the recent work by Lossois et al, in which 80.4% of the subjects evaluated were sub-Saharan, 89% of the orthopantomographies performed found a Demirjian H stage in the third molars and, given that they followed the AGFAD recommendations for forensic age estimation (a clavicular CT scan was performed in all cases with complete ossification of the hand), they concluded that 95.85% of the cases studied were most likely at least 18 years old [ 25 ].…”